From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 09 1999 - 01:54:59 MDT
In a message dated 10/9/1999 0:14:58 AM EST, cyn386@flash.net writes:
<< "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> > True, maybe they shouldn't. And maybe parents are suckers,
> > for loving and taking
> > care of their children.
>
> Oh come on! If that were true the first time the child screamed
> at the top of its lungs for an hour you would chuck it in the
> trash container.
>
> Parents "love" children because nature has programmed us to do that.
> Children are "cute" because nature makes them that way or nature
> makes our perception of "cute" match the image of a child.
That is my point. It may not be logical for parents to love their
children, but it is human nature.>>
In general, I agree. There is some strong bias in the human psychological
make-up for adults to care about children (especially, but not just, their
own children). Of course, there are people who for various reasons are
exceptions to this rule. When you combine the fact that it is generally
human nature to care about children with the fact that there are some people
who are exceptions and do not care as much about children as the rest of the
population, then you get the conflict which arises which causes "society" to
take interest in the welfare of all children. In general, since the majority
of parents are assumed to care about their children, it is left to them to
see to their care, but society continually gets involved to try to off-set
the possibility that parents may not care. There is also the issue of
parents who care but may not either be following optimal strategies (as
perceived by others) of child-rearing or don't have the resources to follow
those strategies completely, which add to this impetus for society to involve
itself in the parent child relationship.
<<And you can't change human nature.>>
Actually, we can change human nature, though right now the changes we can
make are crude and often not for the better. Eventually, I anticipate that
we will be able to completely reshape human nature. The question is should
we, and if so, into what?
<<And saying that people shouldn't care about whether young people in their
community are being properly educated, may be logical, but that goes
against human nature also.>>
My first response above generally agrees on the point about there being a
natural inclination to care about the young. However, I don't think it is
necessarily true that it is logical not to care about whether young in your
area are being educated. I could make the logical argument that these are
the people you will have to deal with in your day to day life, and that well
educated people might provide a better environment for you to live in.
<<Don't argue against natural human impulses. Instead point out the harm
that forcing 'education' on young people does.>>
Oh, I try to argue against at least one natural human impulse a day....and
then argue for one a day as well<g>. What we should do is take human nature
into account in our plans and theories. Indeed, part of the problem with
education and the young is in a way "human nature". When we are very young
is when we have the best learning ability of our lives. If at some point in
your life you wanted to have the best education you can, then you really need
to start at a very young age. Unfortunately, at such early age, a child is
still immature intellectually, emotionally, and experientially. They simply
don't have the capacity to make such a far reaching decision. That is why we
must use substituted judgement to try and figure out what this young person
would want in the long run. Now, having said that, I think one of the most
important things to remember is that children are pre-programmed to learn,
just not in a modern environment. They learn by play, and they want to play.
The trick is to structure learning in such a way that it is perceived by the
child as play, but retains the knowledge instruction that the child will need
for later life. I think one of the biggest problems is that we don't know
very good ways to play which impart modern skills and knowledge. Transmute
teaching into play and you will not have to compel it...the child will ask
you.
<< At the same time someone who is psychotic due to personal
> experiences (something like the war in Vietnam) or simple
> personal genetics may be driving people away, but this is not
> derived from "conscious" decision.
It may not be a conscious decision. You may want to feed a hungry dog, but
if that dog looks like he might bite you, you probably will give the food
to another creature instead. And nobody would accuse you of being
indifferent to the dogs needs.>>
Or you could offer the food in a way that the dog would not feel threatened.
To put the scenario another way: Patients in a hospital will often lash out
at nurses and doctors, they will yell, make demands, refuse to cooperate in
their own care. The natural reaction to this is to say, forget them, I've
got other patients who will gladly accept care. However, health care
providers don't have that luxury. The fact is, when someone agrees to enter
the hospital, we have a moral obligation (which we accepted with the job) to
give that person the best care we can. It is not a matter of how we feel,
but what the patient needs. You do what you can to put that person at ease,
show them you are there to help, get through past the hurt and fear and
sometimes plain contrariness to do what needs doing for that person. Now, in
that scenario, it is where the one offering help is in control. Where it is
valid to walk away from the snarling dog is when you are not in a situation
of personal safety. No one can ask you to get bitten for your troubles.
<< That is true. The idea that everybody can be helped is a fantasy.
> > But it is a fantasy that many people believe.
>
> It isn't a fantasy. The problem is with the belief that "help"
> has a universal form. In one situation "helping" a person may
> be to assist in the termination of their life, in another situation
> "helping" may be to fight tooth and claw to prevent them from doing so.
>
> The fantasy is that there are "universal" answers.
People tend to underestimate how easy it is to solve problems. Certainly,
very few problem can be solved by turning over vast sums of money to social
workers with below average IQ's. Or allowing lawyers to make all the
decisions. >>
Theoretically, everyone can be "helped", however, the reality is often
different because of lack of time, resources, insight, or technological
advancement. I agree that there are no universal answers to the problems of
the world, but that doesn't mean there aren't answers for every problem
(customized for the situation). Often, solutions can seem easy in
retrospect, but might be devilishly difficult to find and put in place. You
have a point, however, when you say that throwing money at a large
beaurocracy which is poorly staffed would be bad (but I should add that most
of the social workers I have met have been reasonably intelligent but are
themselves drowning in the twin threats of beaurocracy and having to deal
with the difficult interpersonal issues of those they are trying to help).
As for lawyers making decisions, I think it would be best to have a diversity
of viewpoint in decision-making processes.
Glen Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:27 MST